Your Top Ten One-Day International BOWLERS of all-time

[weldone]

Warne's worth and value to an ODI team would be far greater than SPollocks, simply because medium-paced seamers abound, whereas decent spinners are few and far between.

That is equivalent to saying "Lara is a much better batsman than Sachin only because plenty of good right-handed batters are around, but world-class left-handed batters are few and far between."

 

[weldone]

Pollock deserves a enormous kudos, because somehow, in this era of Haydens and Gilchrists, he has kept his E/R around 3.7, and it hasn't even gone up since 2000, when all this bashing and crashing began.

Yeah exactly...I mean no other bowler of his era achieved the same feat except probably Mcgrath...I am amazed how people can ignore such an economy rate (3.69) in this era of pinch-hitting and bashing...He will be a gem only for this reason in any ODI team, if not for his wicket-taking ability with those big booming swings.

 

[Top_Cat]

They give an idea, you're right. Facts prove things conclusively. Obviously if a bowler has an average of 30 and another 20, then the 20 bowler is better, but a couple of runs...? Nope. If a bowler has an average of 22 and another 24, that means literally nothing to me. Stats haven't proved a thing.

NOTE: I wasn't using any cricketers there as an example. Just saying that stats aren't facts that prove who's better. They don't show anything conclusively.

Whilst statistics in and of themselves don't 'prove' anything, the above example is dodgy. Why? Your 'two runs is bugger-all difference' example is fundamentally flawed as it fails to take into account the law of diminishing returns. A one gets closer to the ideal, the effort required to sustain that level or even better increases exponentially. So the difference between a bowler averaging 21 vs another averaging 23 is a far greater difference than between one averaging 28 vs 30. So two runs between the latter example might not be significant but two runs difference between the former becomes quite a significant different indeed.

Mind you, comparing averages across eras becomes too difficult when one has to take into account changing rules, conditions, ball-types, batting technology, etc.

 

[Ikki]

So if he played 94 matches less with the same average and the same economy rate then you would have respected him the same way as you do now as an ODI bowler? Then there is no reward for his taking the pain of playing that extra amount of cricket?........What you said is equivalent to saying "If two players make 11500 runs and 4500 runs respectively with the same average 55.46 then they should be considered equal performers". ....Ridiculous.

No, if I had doubts about the bowler who bowled less to have continued bowling more and getting roughly the same averages then yes I would factor that in. But I have none about Warne getting the same, if not more, wickets than Pollock at the same ratios. To me it's simply because Warne's injuries finished him off and he stopped ODI to lengthen his test career. It isn't saying much about who is better than who. Whilst it is an achievement, it is that for Pollock himself.

Your above comparison with runs and average can be essentially used to compare Jack Hobbs and Brian Lara. And then use that argument to say Lara is better than Hobbs. He could be, but definitely not based on that.

 

[Ikki]

The conclusions you draw from those stats are not facts, however.

Yes: i.e, Player X is better than Player Y because he had 20 more wickets at 0.5 runs cheaper per wicket.

 

[Perm]

The conclusions you draw from those stats are not facts, however.

And? When did I, or anybody else say that they were? Statistics ARE facts, that statement in itself is fact. You can't deny that. What conclusions you do draw from those statistics are not fact, unless you repeat the statistic in a different way. For example, Warne's average is inferior to Hadlee's. Just an example. If you were to say Hadlee is a better ODI bowler than Warne, based on statistics, then that wouldn't be fact.

 

[pasag]

And? When did I, or anybody else say that they were? Statistics ARE facts, that statement in itself is fact. You can't deny that. What conclusions you do draw from those statistics are not fact, unless you repeat the statistic in a different way. For example, Warne's average is inferior to Hadlee's. Just an example. If you were to say Hadlee is a better ODI bowler than Warne, based on statistics, then that wouldn't be fact.

When did I say you said that? However the conclusions do get treated as facts all the time around here. It's a pretty noticeable trend. There's certainly a notion that the conclusions attached to stats are facts towards something or rather, just look at the rubbish 'output' arguments.

If someone, like Kazo said, x statistically > y statistically, that would be fact, however, the fact part gets transferred onto the x>y as a player all the time. That is what grates.

To be blunt, it seems like people (like yourself predominately) just go to statsguru, find out whoever has the best stats for the period of question and determined who is better with that. Having next to no idea in what circumstances any of them have scored their runs and in fact any idea of their careers. You speak about what the players have achieved, I think you've got next to no idea tbh. Go do some proper research and then come back to us. Looking up career averages on cricinfo or even manipulating the filter in whatever way you want will not suffice I'm afraid. Any Joe off the road can do that.

I also think like SJS's sig, that the defending of stats is just a cover up from larger ignorances. Would one defend them so staunchly if they had any real knowledge of the history of the game and its players? If you read a book or two would you still cling to those stas so dearly?

As it is, it's all just a bluffing game - look up stats, post in an authoritative manner with loads of guesswork and hope that no one pulls you up on it. I can't be the only one that see this.

Apologies for the rant and its condescending nature (unintentional), but I feel VERY strongly about this, although it is OT and we should try get the thread back on track.

 

[NZTailender]

Pasag just leans on that one with soft hands and it flies away to the boundary. In good nick today, looking for a big score after a scratchy start.

 

[The Sean]

When did I say you said that? However the conclusions do get treated as facts all the time around here. It's a pretty noticeable trend. There's certainly a notion that the conclusions attached to stats are facts towards something or rather, just look at the rubbish 'output' arguments.

If someone, like Kazo said, x statistically > y statistically, that would be fact, however, the fact part gets transferred onto the x>y as a player all the time. That is what grates.

To be blunt, it seems like people (like yourself predominately) just go to statsguru, find out whoever has the best stats for the period of question and determined who is better with that. Having next to no idea in what circumstances any of them have scored their runs and in fact any idea of their careers. You speak about what the players have achieved, I think you've got next to no idea tbh. Go do some proper research and then come back to us. Looking up career averages on cricinfo or even manipulating the filter in whatever way you want will not suffice I'm afraid. Any Joe off the road can do that.

I also think like SJS's sig, that the defending of stats is just a cover up from larger ignorances. Would one defend them so staunchly if they had any real knowledge of the history of the game and its players? If you read a book or two would you still cling to those stas so dearly?

As it is, it's all just a bluffing game - look up stats, post in an authoritative manner with loads of guesswork and hope that no one pulls you up on it. I can't be the only one that see this.

Apologies for the rant and its condescending nature (unintentional), but I feel VERY strongly about this, although it is OT and we should try get the thread back on track.

Gun.

 

[Perm]

Meh, fair enough. I know you feel strongly on the issue, but I didn't feel there was a need to make your post an insulting one.

 

[pasag]

Meh, fair enough. I know you feel strongly on the issue, but I didn't feel there was a need to make your post an insulting one.

You're right, full apologies.

 

[Perm]

You're right, full apologies.

Accepted. FWIW it's fairly pointless us discussing this issue, as our opinions are polar opposites and we aren't going to change.

 

[weldone]

No, if I had doubts about the bowler who bowled less to have continued bowling more and getting roughly the same averages then yes I would factor that in. But I have none about Warne getting the same, if not more, wickets than Pollock at the same ratios. To me it's simply because Warne's injuries finished him off and he stopped ODI to lengthen his test career. It isn't saying much about who is better than who. Whilst it is an achievement, it is that for Pollock himself.

If Warne could have kept the same records in ODI while playing tests at the same level simultaneously (the kind of superlative performance he maintained in tests) then he wouldn't have left playing ODIs. With age and injuries he found it difficult to maintain the same records in both forms simultaneously, that's why he left playing ODIs (even you said that). So none can say what would have happened to his ODI records (and test records too) if he played 94 more ODIs.

Your above comparison with runs and average can be essentially used to compare Jack Hobbs and Brian Lara. And then use that argument to say Lara is better than Hobbs. He could be, but definitely not based on that.

Not at all. Hobbs averaged more than Lara while Lara scored more than him. So it is difficult to compare the 2 (even not considering the fact that they played in different eras unlike Warne and Pollock).....I don't understand why you people are complicating things unnecessarily.....If in the same era one bowler has taken more wickets than other with better average and much better economy rate in ODIs then he is a better performer with the ball in ODIs, it's as simple as that.

 

[weldone]

When did I say you said that? However the conclusions do get treated as facts all the time around here. It's a pretty noticeable trend. There's certainly a notion that the conclusions attached to stats are facts towards something or rather, just look at the rubbish 'output' arguments.

If someone, like Kazo said, x statistically > y statistically, that would be fact, however, the fact part gets transferred onto the x>y as a player all the time. That is what grates.

To be blunt, it seems like people (like yourself predominately) just go to statsguru, find out whoever has the best stats for the period of question and determined who is better with that. Having next to no idea in what circumstances any of them have scored their runs and in fact any idea of their careers. You speak about what the players have achieved, I think you've got next to no idea tbh. Go do some proper research and then come back to us. Looking up career averages on cricinfo or even manipulating the filter in whatever way you want will not suffice I'm afraid. Any Joe off the road can do that.

I also think like SJS's sig, that the defending of stats is just a cover up from larger ignorances. Would one defend them so staunchly if they had any real knowledge of the history of the game and its players? If you read a book or two would you still cling to those stas so dearly?

As it is, it's all just a bluffing game - look up stats, post in an authoritative manner with loads of guesswork and hope that no one pulls you up on it. I can't be the only one that see this.

Apologies for the rant and its condescending nature (unintentional), but I feel VERY strongly about this, although it is OT and we should try get the thread back on track.

I understand what you are trying to say. But I feel there are some persons here (like me) who strongly feel statistics, if handled properly, can judge the performances (not the quality of the players though)....It is another question though whether that kind of proper analysis of statistics has ever been done by anyone on earth till now....Our feelings in this regard are as strong as how you feel in your cricket theories.

You might not believe in our viewpoint. And we respect your opinions also. But we also expect you to respect our opinions....because if there is never any contradiction of opinions then cricket discussion will stop for ever on this planet.

 

[Ikki]

If Warne could have kept the same records in ODI while playing tests at the same level simultaneously (the kind of superlative performance he maintained in tests) then he wouldn't have left playing ODIs. With age and injuries he found it difficult to maintain the same records in both forms simultaneously, that's why he left playing ODIs (even you said that). So none can say what would have happened to his ODI records (and test records too) if he played 94 more ODIs.

No one can predict anything if we wish to go on that route. What we do look at is a large sample where we take their averages into account. Even wicket-taking which is incorporated as strike-rate. This leaves us to the conclusion that had Warne played as many more tests as Pollock he would have taken more wickets.

Not at all. Hobbs averaged more than Lara while Lara scored more than him. So it is difficult to compare the 2 (even not considering the fact that they played in different eras unlike Warne and Pollock).....I don't understand why you people are complicating things unnecessarily.....If in the same era one bowler has taken more wickets than other with better average and much better economy rate in ODIs then he is a better performer with the ball in ODIs, it's as simple as that.

Um, by the same account, Warne is 3 balls faster than Pollock and hence would have had more wickets had he played more.

And it's not entirely different to compare. To compare two players who perform similarly over their careers, with one performing more when it was tougher, and divide them because basically one played less matches is really stretching it. If that's why you put Pollock in top 5 and Warne isn't eligible because of this reason it is a poor argument at best.

 

[Ikki]

And? When did I, or anybody else say that they were? Statistics ARE facts, that statement in itself is fact. You can't deny that. What conclusions you do draw from those statistics are not fact, unless you repeat the statistic in a different way. For example, Warne's average is inferior to Hadlee's. Just an example. If you were to say Hadlee is a better ODI bowler than Warne, based on statistics, then that wouldn't be fact.

Statistics are numbers. What is fact is saying Player X has X1 score. That's about as 'fact' as it gets.

 

[weldone]

and divide them because basically one played less matches is really stretching it. If that's why you put Pollock in top 5 and Warne isn't eligible it is a poor argument at best.

No I've repeatedly said that's only 1 of the 3 reasons...the other 2 being huge difference in economy rate and a slight difference in average....i find these three stats more important than strike rate in ODI.

Moreover, how can 1 say that playing against a Pakistan or an Indian side in World Cup final is tougher than playing against the same side in another ODI I don't quite understand.

 

[Ikki]

No I've repeatedly said that's only 1 of the 3 reasons...the other 2 being huge difference in economy rate and a slight difference in average....i find these three stats more important than strike rate in ODI.

Fine. Meager difference and IMO not something that means as much as playing better against the best and in the toughest conditions.

Agree to disagree.

Moreover, how can 1 say that playing against a Pakistan or an Indian side in World Cup final is tougher than playing against the same side in another ODI I don't quite understand.

Ok, that's like asking: what is the difference between Brazil and France playing in a friendly and them playing in the World Cup final.

Huge difference. Pressure, the opponent and the subsequent performance is the test of a champion; the mark of an all-time bowler.

 

[weldone]

Huge difference. Pressure, the opponent and the subsequent performance is the test of a champion; the mark of an all-time bowler.

No, I don't think there are any good player nowadays who doesn't take international matches seriously.

Well, just think, the pressure is not only on Warne but also on the batsmen he is bowling against. So, doesn't it nullify each other?

 

[Ikki]

No, I don't think there are any good player nowadays who doesn't take international matches seriously.

They take them so seriously that Australia used upcoming tournaments to rest players for the WC.

Well, just think, the pressure is not only on Warne but also on the batsmen he is bowling against. So, doesn't it nullify each other?

No...bloody hell...no.

It takes a special player to rise above that pressure and perform well. Not perform well, destroy - which is a better term to describe Warne's spells.

And by your submission...if all players are under that pressure, and it took great players/performances to get to that final...the highest stage of all is that final. And if only a handful of players actually perform in that final, it is more than just playing a regular ODI which a lot of players perform in.